Opinion: Canon’s mounting woes

[ReflexVE]

Some people simply prefer APS-C sensors. In some cases, it’s because the whole kit can be smaller/lighter. Personally, that’s why I have the M6II and M lenses. In other cases, it’s because they think APS-C offers advantages other than smaller size and/or lower system cost (which means that unless they’re focal length limited, they don’t understand the impact of sensor size). Although to be fair, if you’re shooting mainly in bright light, the IQ advantages of FF aren’t huge.

This. I find APS-C to be the best balance of weight/size/cost for a daily carry. I also prefer it's DoF as I can use fast apertures without severely limiting my FoV so only a single eye is in focus. It's a style choice on the latter but it's what I prefer.

I also happen to own a GFX 100S + GF110mm f/2 for special situations (usually portraits) where I want high resolution and ultimate image quality. But I don't break that body out as often as I should due to the size/weight and it's not a daily carry.

Looks like we do agree on some things.

 

[ReflexVE]

To suggest that Canon is not changing strategy with the changing market conditions but that Sony and Nikon are is misleading. Clearly Canon has removed the EF-M line, discontinued most of the EF lenses and gone all in for R mount over a 5 year period.
After Magic Lantern showed what could actually be done on the 5Diii, the release of the R5 was quite revolutionary and similar to the 5Dii in that sense. Its capabilities redefined what a hybrid camera could do and surprised (annoyed) many.

To say that the industry is changing but not Canon because it hasn't allowed open access (or very limited licensed access) to 3rd party RF lenses is not looking at the bigger picture.

Apple is the market leader for phones in profit not volume. They aren't bleeding edge in many ways but they work together within their walled eco-system. Users accept that limitation for the benefits of compatibility and it has been a good strategy for them.

To be clear, Canon is the Microsoft of cameras, not the Apple. They do not offer the 'best' solution, only the most widely adopted one. And a huge part of that was the open mount. If Canon is aiming to be a closed ecosystem and accepting the concept of limiting their market that's a fine strategy, but we should expect Sony to overtake them in the next decade or so. Again, if they believe profit per unit is more important than market share, more power to them, but we can't really pretend that is their position today.

For the record, I truly dislike Sony, but the reasons have little to do with cameras and a lot to do with what the company did to my hometown (long story).

 

[ReflexVE]

I have the OPINION that it's not productive to complain HERE. If you read the article, you would have noticed a RUMOR about Canon opening the mount to 3rd parties. It makes more sense to discuss which lenses we are interested in and why and what we feel the likely hood of it happening.

Nobody asked you to police the comments and decide what we should or should not discuss. After all some of us are responding to the actual article, others seem to want to discuss other things and tell us to 'get over it' or whatever.

 

[Walrus]

Ultimately, Canon have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders... not by customers or other non-government parties.

And I agree to that

But, as someone said in a previous message, "I vote with my wallet", meaning, to semi-quote your words, that I have a fiduciary responsibility to my shareholders (so to my business; which, being a personal owned business, means responsibility to myself alone), not by Canon or other manufacturer parties

I don't pretend to steer Canon policy, nobody in their right state of mind can dream that, but being a Canon user since 1999 (but I could have been just since 2022; that doesn't change anything) I feel entitled to express my opinion, which is simply "I'll go to (or stay in) the party that gives me the best balance between general quality, reliability, ergonomics, lens choice, sensor quality, lens quality, maintenance/service, etc, you name it, while being the cheapest possible while taking account of the previous qualities", because I run a business, so the less I spend in equipment, the more I get to keep into my bank account at the and of the year.

To date, and since 2010 when I started do it professionally, Canon is still the "best bang for my bucks", and I'm happy enough with it; just saying that, the moment the aforementioned balance changes, as Canon is not loyal to me but to their shareholders, I don't have to be loyal to Canon.

I'm saying Canon is doooooomed? Hell no, I don't give a sh*t about what Canon does or doesn't with its sales, market share, etc today Canon fits my bill, love it; tomorrow they doesn't, if there are no better options I'll adapt (...talking about adapters!), if there are, "I'll vote with my wallet", it's as simple as that.

 

[Loswr]

Ultimately, Canon have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders... not by customers or other non-government parties.
The assumption is that good corporate governance and financial performance will enable R&D spend into new competitive products that customers will buy. They don't have to be happy but it helps

Some people would rather ignore the reality that Canon is a business. They want 3rd party lenses because OEM lenses are too expensive. They don’t care about the reasons they’re expensive, or the reasons Canon is blocking them. These people are not getting what they want, and they don’t want to hear the reasons why. Petulance by any other name.

 

[Loswr]

I also prefer it's DoF as I can use fast apertures without severely limiting my FoV so only a single eye is in focus. It's a style choice on the latter but it's what I prefer.

Lol. I guess you’re unaware that most lenses can be stopped down to increase DoF, even on full frame cameras. There’s no ‘severe limitation’ on DoF or FoV. With a larger sensor, you can have shallower DoF, but it’s not like you’re forced to.

The mental gymnastics people go through to justify their choices is an ongoing source of amusement.

OTOH, it’s unfortunate that so many people really just don’t understand the consequences of equivalence as it applies to sensor size.

 

[ReflexVE]

Some people would rather ignore the reality that Canon is a business. They want 3rd party lenses because OEM lenses are too expensive. They don’t care about the reasons they’re expensive, or the reasons Canon is blocking them. These people are not getting what they want, and they don’t want to hear the reasons why. Petulance by any other name.

Everyone is aware they are a business. It's just besides the point. I make decisions based on what is best for me, not what's best for Canon. And when Canon's moves diverge from my needs, I call it out. They may or may not listen, who knows, but I will speak my mind about it. Furthermore, when someone leaves a system, explaining why is free feedback, something most companies do appreciate (as someone who's done exit interviews on multiple occasions).

I get that some of you don't want to hear it, so, you know, there is a block button so you can live in your bubble.

 

[ReflexVE]

Lol. I guess you’re unaware that most lenses can be stopped down to increase DoF, even on full frame cameras. There’s no ‘severe limitation’ on DoF or FoV. With a larger sensor, you can have shallower DoF, but it’s not like you’re forced to.

The mental gymnastics people go through to justify their choices is an ongoing source of amusement.

Um, some of us need the light. The advantage to crop is that I can have, say, f/1.2 level light but with FF f/1.8 DoF. Depending on what you are doing that can be an advantage. I find it to be for how I shoot anyway. You may not, and that's cool, that's your style.

 

[Loswr]

Um, some of us need the light. The advantage to crop is that I can have, say, f/1.2 level light but with FF f/1.8 DoF. Depending on what you are doing that can be an advantage. I find it to be for how I shoot anyway. You may not, and that's cool, that's your style.

As I suspected when I edited my post, you evidently don’t understand equivalence. What you describe is not an ‘advantage to crop’ sensors.

You can try to learn about the relevant concepts, or keep living in your bubble where you know it all. I’m going to guess you’ll choose the latter approach.

 

[Loswr]

If I use a f/1.2 lens in FF, I have the same amount of light, but a much narrower DoF. I could stop down, but I lose light in doing so. Depending on what I'm shooting, it's an issue. There is literally no reason for me to ever shoot with a DoF at f/1.2, I don't do macro or anything like that, I do a lot of portraits, usually outdoors. I shoot with a camera that has up to 1/32000 shutter speed (stacked sensor) so cutting down on light is very easy. Getting more of it is much harder and requires fast glass.

Of course, you’re right. Here I was, thinking the exposure triangle has three sides, and believing that one of those sides is related to image noise in a way that’s affected by sensor size. Silly me. It’s good that there are knowledgable people like you around to explain how things really work!

 

[ReflexVE]

Of course, you’re right. Here I was, thinking the exposure triangle has three sides, and believing that one of those sides is related to image noise in a way that’s affected by sensor size. Silly me. It’s good that there are knowledgable people like you around to explain how things really work!

 

[Loswr]

You can try to learn about the relevant concepts, or keep living in your bubble where you know it all. I’m going to guess you’ll choose the latter approach.

I guessed right. Shocking.

 

[VegasCameraGuy]

Canon was aggressively preventing third-party lens manufacturers from developing the RF mount

Occam's razor tells us that the simplest answer is the most likely and I'd guess Canon is simply trying to protect their bottom line. I only buy Canon L lenses for my R5 and they all run $2,500 - $3,000 a pop. This is also the difference between Apple and the PC computers. Apple has a closed infrastructure like Canon RF mounts and their products are typically twice the cost of a equivalent PC. As long as customers are willing to pay the price, why not?

 

[EricN]

yes, but Craig wanted me to write these kinds of articles and my opinions so I listened to my boss

Personally - for APS-C the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8, 16 1.4, and 56mm, also the viltrox aps-c primes (16,23)

Full frame Sigma 17mm F4.0, Tamron 17-50, 28-75, 70-180mm - if I didn't loathe Sony so much, these lenses would have made me switch.

I also have another personal proviso. I shoot alot of infrared - so having just one manufacturer blows, because if that manufacturer's lenses don't play nice with IR, than you simply don't have another option. But that's a far out there edge case.

Gotta listen to the boss. I thought maybe there wasn't much else to write about and this is a topic that many people feel passionate about.

A standard (or any) 2.8 zoom certainly would be good for APS-C and I suspect canon does not plan to make one. I can't really guess on the others.
I'm not particularly interested in any of those full frame lenses. The 14mm f1.4 is tempting for me, but I think Canon will give something a little better, but more expensive. a 180 or 200mm macro is also something I would be tempted by and very unlikely to see it from anytime soon.

For me, I still have a 1N, so it's convenient for me to shoot IR film with it and adapt my EF lenses on the R5. Although it is loud and does add some weight as well as scare animals. I have no idea how many people like IR, but we do have at least one company that modifies the sensors.

 

[EricN]

Um, some of us need the light. The advantage to crop is that I can have, say, f/1.2 level light but with FF f/1.8 DoF. Depending on what you are doing that can be an advantage. I find it to be for how I shoot anyway. You may not, and that's cool, that's your style.

You really should educate yourself about this and some other things you wrote about. Are you one of those people that think they can watch a few youtube videos made by self professed experts and suddenly know everything?

 

[ReflexVE]

You really should educate yourself about this and some other things you wrote about. Are you one of those people that think they can watch a few youtube videos made by self professed experts and suddenly know everything?

Always fun when people can't address the topic so they move to insults.

 

[Quackator]

I don't think Canon did themselves a favor with this.
Look at the tens of thousands of Blackmagic Cameras out there and
imagine how many EF lenses were sold to be used on them.

Having waited too long, Canon lost that market to the L-mount consortium.

 

[EricN]

Nobody asked you to police the comments and decide what we should or should not discuss. After all some of us are responding to the actual article, others seem to want to discuss other things and tell us to 'get over it' or whatever.

I'm expressing my opinion about the futility of complaining, venting, or whining about something here when there are other places with high probabilities of success. Maybe you didn't actually read the WHOLE article where towards the end a rumor is mentioned that Canon has something in the works regarding third parties for next year? Considering you never noticed a non-newly released lens being out of stock and don't seem to know some other facts and flat out ignore other, I'm not shocked that you seem to be proceeding with blinders on and it certainly does go along with you not giving your friend's advice enough consideration to at least research weather what he said was reasonable before making a decision important enough to feel bitter about when it turned out to be the wrong decision for you.
Anyway, do you believe it's really a discussion when you so quickly dismissed a reply on the very first page?

 

[Deleted member 386702]

I really don't think Canon is loosing anything by preventing some brands to make third party lenses. At least, not at that point.
They'll probably adapt that to the market at some point, if needed. That's not even a concern to my sense.
About EOS M : I think the vast majority of EOS M users just kept their last EOS M cameras. They didn't switch and have no intention to do so, simply because their camera works well and do what they want it to do (and will probably be doing so for years). I can see at my club that most EOS M owners are just :
- keeping them
- stopping "dedicated camera" photography (or just photography)
- switching to more expensive and bigger FF systems...

By now, still, a minority is switching to another APS-C system (may it be Fuji, Sony, Nikon Dx or Canon RF-S).
To my sense, it's much more likely that the vast majority of APS-C only users will replace them by using their phone most of the time in the coming years, most of them ignoring the existence of equivalency concept and the endless debates about it. Anyway, AI can add bokeh anywhere it's needed in most of their shots and only very few (if ever) will be able to see any difference.

 

[EricN]

Always fun when people can't address the topic so they move to insults.

Funny you should consider my attempt to motivate you into educating yourself as an insult when you wrote this:

Um, how is that relevant to the topic? It's not even a response. Nowhere did I say otherwise. It's like someone explaining why they are a Cleveland fan and someone responding "The Yankees have 27 rings baby!" as though that has anything to do with the fact that they are just talking about something else. You aren't even busy debating here, you are just replying with a non sequitur.